See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222153296

The evaporation coefficient of water: A review

Article  in  International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer · August 1997

DOI: 10.1016/S0017-9310(96)00339-0

CITATIONS READS
207 5,239

3 authors, including:

Ian W. Eames Hisham Sabir

University of Nottingham Qatar Foundation
73 PUBLICATIONS   2,260 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   559 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HPC 2012 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian W. Eames on 20 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 hit. J. IIeat Mav~ Tran,~/er. Vol. 40, No. 12. pp. 2963 2973, 1997

~ Pergamon 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights rcserved

Printed in Great Britain
0017 9310,'97 $17.00+0.00

P I I : S0017-9310(96)00339-0

The evaporation coefficient of water: a review

I. W. E A M E S , N. J. M A R R a n d H. S A B I R
Institute of Building Technology, Department of Architecture and Building Technology,
University of Nottingham, University Park~ Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K.

(Received l 1 Januao' 1995 and in finaljorm 3 September 1995)

Abstract Publications, from the last 60 years, on the evaporation coefficient of water have been collated
and the experimental methods, results and conclusions from these investigations are discussed. Reported
values of evaporation coefficient of water range from 0.1 to 1 and despite many attempts to explain this
large variation the evaporation coefficient is still a subject of dispute. Three explanations which have often
been used to account for low evaporation coefficients are : molecular structure, molecular collision in the
vapour phase and heat transfer limitations in the liquid phase. Following an extensive discussion, it is
concluded that molecular collision and heat transfer limitations can have a considerable influence on
experimental evaporation rates and thus apparent evaporation coefficients. However, it now seems unlikely
that molecular structure has a major effect on this coefficient. We conclude from this investigation that for
pure water evaporating into a space containing only water vapour, the true evaporation coefficient is unity
under all conditions of pressure and temperature. '.~;~1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N ences in the published values of e v a p o r a t i o n

E v a p o r a t i o n of a liquid at low s a t u r a t i o n pressures
is a process used in m a n y industrial operations, for
example, in refrigeration, desalination a n d O T E C
(ocean t h e r m a l energy conversion) systems. The evap-
oration coefficient, e,, is defined as the ratio o f a n
experimental e v a p o r a t i o n rate to a theoretical
m a x i m u m rate and, d e p e n d i n g on its value, can influ-
ence phase change processes. The e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient is closely linked to, a l t h o u g h n o t inter-
changeable with, the c o n d e n s a t i o n coefficient which
is defined as the ratio of experimental c o n d e n s a t i o n
rate to a theoretical m a x i m u m rate. The e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient is inversely related to the interfacial heat
transfer resistance and, therefore, a low e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient could indicate a significant t h e r m a l resist-
ance to heat transfer in evaporators. Publications on
the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient are scattered t h r o u g h o u t
all areas o f science a n d engineering a n d have been of
interest to such diverse fields as space technology [1]
a n d aerosol physics [2,3]. F o r example, the growth of
water droplets in clouds is affected by the con-
densation coefficient only if its value is substantially,
a b o u t two orders o f magnitude, less t h a n unity. How-
ever, this coefficient is of more i m p o r t a n c e to processes
in a t m o s p h e r i c aerosols [4]. The m o s t recent com-
prehensive review of e v a p o r a t i o n coefficients was by
P o u n d m o r e t h a n 20 years ago. M o r e recent inves-
tigations [4, 5] have briefly reviewed some of the pub-
lished work on the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient o f water.
However, it was t h o u g h t t h a t a comprehensive review
p a p e r was required which would provide a n o p p o r -
tunity to study the available results in this field a n d
which offered full explanations a c c o u n t i n g for differ-
coefficient.
This paper is concerned with water e v a p o r a t i o n at
low pressure a n d reviews the literature o n empirically
determined e v a p o r a t i o n coefficients (c.f. Table. 1 in
Section 3). The wide range o f quoted values, from
0.01 to 1, of the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient for water are
an indication o f the complex n a t u r e o f this subject.
A review o f experimental m e t h o d s published in the
literature is given in Section 3 a n d possible expla-
nations for wide variance in the values o f e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient are discussed.
The e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient of water has been the
subject o f m a n y theoretical a n d experimental papers
a n d is still an area of dispute. Part o f the reason for
this intense interest is the fact t h a t some liquids, water
included, a p p e a r to e v a p o r a t e at a rate far less t h a n the
theoretical rate calculated using K n u d s e n ' s equation.
This theoretical m a x i m u m value is [6] :
P~
n--
(2~zmkB T,) 12
or, if the liquid is e v a p o r a t i o n into its own v a p o u r
n - (2~mkOt"2 x/'T~
A conclusive e x p l a n a t i o n for the experimental
d e p a r t u r e from the K n u d s e n rate does n o t exist,
a l t h o u g h various hypotheses have been m a d e [7 14].
These theories offer n u m e r o u s explanations for the
c o n t r a s t i n g values o f e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient a n d
include inaccurate t e m p e r a t u r e a n d pressure measure-
ment, disregard of molecular collisions a n d chemical
impurity. A n i m p o r t a n t consideration is the possible

2963
2964 1. W. EAMES el a/.
NOMENCLATURE
A area
A<. c o n d e n s a t i o n surface area
A,. e v a p o r a t i o n surface area
o arithmetic mean of the velocities of the
molecules
f efficiency factor
D~, interfacial heat transfer coefficient
H distance between e v a p o r a t i o n and
c o n d e n s a t i o n surfaces
kB Boltzmann'sconstant 1.38x10 >
JK
/ m e a n free path
M molecular mass
m mass of each molecule
Bl mass flow rate
N n u m b e r of molecules per unit volume
[kmol m ~]
n n u m b e r of impacts per unit area per
unit time [kmol in ~ s ~]
P~ saturated v a p o u r pressure
c o r r e s p o n d i n g to T,
P, actual wipour pressure
effects o f polarity a n d molecular o r i e n t a t i o n on evap-
oration coefficients. The theories discussing these
effects [10, 11, 13], which have been derived by chem-
ists, have agreed with empirical results of Alty [15,
16], Alty and M a c K a y [17] a n d Wyllie {14], yielding c
values of 0.01 0.05. However, empirical results pub-
lished more recently [18 20] indicate an e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient for water greater than 0.5, thus. con-
tradicting the chemistry hypotheses. This led H i c k m a n
[9] to state that, "'correcting for b o n d i n g a n d
rotational effects has already been c o m p e n s a t e d for in
the v a p o u r pressure values and these same forces
should not be invoked to explain low values of ~:".
Differences in the values of e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient
are associated with differences in experimental appar-
atus. An example of this is a c o m p a r i s o n between the
work of Airy [15] and that of H i c k m a n [9, 21]. In
Alty's experiments the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient of
water was m e a s u r e d using a small still, submerged in
a hot mercury bath. In H i c k m a n ' s experiments evap-
oration rates were measured from a high velocity
water jet. The m a x i m u m values of r reported by Alty
and H i c k m a n were 0.01 and 0.5, respectively. The
main reason for this difference is believed to be surface
cooling of the liquid. In Alty's experiments the tem-
perature reading was of the bulk liquid and not of the
surface. This is an i m p o r t a n t detail that can greatly
affect the accuracy of the theoretical e v a p o r a t i o n rate
calculation. W h e n e v a p o r a t i o n rates tire relatively
high a n d the thermal conductivity low, as it is for
water, a shortage of available heat at the interface is
t h o u g h t to lead to large t e m p e r a t u r e gradients m the
P, saturated v a p o u r pressure
c o r r e s p o n d i n g to T,
R Universal gas c o n s t a n t 8.3145 kJ
kmol I K
l time
inlet t e m p e r a t u r e
7', vapour temperature
T, liquid surface t e m p e r a t u r e
T,,~ 1.2 ( T , + T,)
I" volume
1", specific volume of water wipour
W lnass flux away from the surface
[kg In e s el
W net lnass flux at the interface.
Greek symbols
c true e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient
~:, K n u d s e n e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient
I Schrage correction factor or mass flow
rate per unit width
,; latent heat of vaporization.
liquid adjacent to the interface. An error in tem-
perature m e a s u r e m e n t will also lead to an incorrect
value for saturated v a p o u r pressure and will. conse-
quently, affect the theoretical e v a p o r a t i o n rate. A cor-
rect t e m p e r a t u r e m e a s u r e m e n t would, thus, result in
a lower theoretical e v a p o r a t i o n rate and a higher wilue
of 5:. The m a g n i t u d e of this problem was reduced
in H i c k m a n ' s experiments since in the high velocity
t u r b u l e n t jet the surface cooling, resulting from heat
loss during evaporation, was restricted due to
increased convection and because the surface was
exposed to a v a c u u m for only 10 ' s. Thus, it is the
rate at which heat is transferred to the liquid surface,
not the a m o u n t o f heat available in the bulk liquid,
that controls the surface t e m p e r a t u r e and e v a p o r a t i o n
rates. Therefore, a l t h o u g h Alty's experiments were
intended to be isothermal the heat translEr limitations
would have induced steep t e m p e r a t u r e gradients m
the liquid [22] resulting in erroneous t e m p e r a t u r e
readings. A n u m b e r of experiments have f o u n d heat
transfer to be the main process limiting c o n d e n s a t i o n
or e v a p o r a t i o n [1, 4, 9, 18].
It appears likely that the contrast in values of c
result mainly from varying degrees of accuracy in
the liquid surface t e m p e r a t u r e m e a s u r e m e n t s due to
differences in experimental conditions a n d apparatus.
Chemical impurities [12] a n d molecular collisions [7,
8] are also imLjor factors that could lead to the cal-
culation of an erroneous "apparent' e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient. Most of the papers published recently on
this subject have d e m o n s t r a t e d that the value of c for
water is not inherently low. as was assumed by m a n y
 The evaporation coefficient of water
early investigators [15 17]. With the evidence sug-
gesting that the evaporation coefficient of water is
greater than 0.5 then the interracial heat transfer
resistance will be small, in most circumstances, com-
pared to the resistance in the liquid phase. The evap-
oration coefficient is most likely to affect processes
where liquid residence times in the evaporator are
small and, hence, the interfacial resistance significant.
A realistic value for the evaporation coefficient can
also be employed as a reference point that might be
used to detect chemical impurities that hinder evap-
oration.
2. THEORETICAL EVAPORATION RATES
The evaporation coefficient, e, is defined as the
experimental rate of evaporation divided by the theor-
etical maximum rate, for the same conditions, which
is derived from kinetic theory of gases. This coefficient
has sometimes been called the condensation coefficient
[14, 20, 23] ; however, in this paper the condensation
coefficient is defined as the ratio between the exper-
imental rate of condensation and the maximum theor-
etical rate of condensation, f: has also been called the
efficiency ratio [7] and the sticking coefficient [4], but
it must not be confused with the " a c c o m m o d a t i o n
coefficient" which involves the evaporation or con-
densation of different species [24]. Various symbols,
including E, ~ and./i have been assigned to the evap-
oration coefficient but in this paper *: is always used.
Experimental rate of evaporation
Theoretical rate of evaporation
- evaporation coefficient - a.
It is known that for every substance there exists a
maximum rate of evaporation that is dependent on
the temperature of the surface and the specific proper-
ties of the substance. This maximum evaporation rate
is derived from the kinetic theory of gases, the vapour
side behaviour being easier to predict than the liquid
side of the interface and, by inference, it is possible to
predict the rate of evaporation as it must be equal and
opposite to the rate of condensation under equi-
librium conditions. For net evaporation, therefore,
the rate of emission must exceed the rate of deposition
of molecules at the interface. Consequently, the
maximum rate of evaporation can never be greater
than the number of vapour molecules striking the
surface of the condensate under equilibrium
conditions. The maximum rate of evaporation in a
vacuum is derived from four fundamental assump-
tions of gas kinetics. These are, as stated in the classic
work by Knudsen [6]:
(1) Any gas consists of separate particles called
molecules. In a pure gas these are all alike.
(2) The molecules move about in all directions.
(3) The pressure caused by the movement of mol-
ecules is the only one existing in a gas, when it is in
the ideal state.
2965
(4) The molecules are not infinitely small. Thus
they collide with one another.
2.1. Rate ~?[evaporation
Hertz [25] conducted evaporation experiments and
was first to state an upper limit to the maximum rate
of evaporation :
I -
n = ~Nc. (1)
From Maxwell's law of velocity distribution of mol-
ecules [26]:
(SkBT,, y '2
C = \ ~m / (la)
and from the ideal gas laws [26] :
P~
N - (lb)
kBT~,"
Substituting in equation (1) for N and ~ :
P,
n . (2)
(2nmks 7~) i
Where T~ is the temperature of the liquid surface, i.e.
the temperature of the highly transient surface layer
of molecules and P~ is the saturation corresponding
to this temperature. Knudesen's work is especially
significant in this area as he was the first to introduce
et, the evaporation coefficient [6]. When Knudsen's
evaporation coefficient is added to equation (2) the
mass exchange during evaporation is given by :
m I 2
W~ =Pj;I<2~RT,). (3)
Equations (2) and (3) are only satisfied if a sub-
stance is evaporating into an unobstructed vacuum.
With some liquids, like water, which have large yap-
our pressures it is not possible to maintain a high
vacuum experimentally and so the pressure at the
phase change boundary is significant and must be
measured. When a liquid is evaporating into a back
pressure of its own vapour the H e r t z - K n u d s e n equa-
tion (sometimes called the Eangmuir equation [27]) is
used. This equation includes an additional pressure
term, Pv, to account for the actual vapour pressure in
the atmosphere surrounding the liquid.
W=(Ps- P~)~:, (4)
2.1.1. Sehra#e correction. During evaporation or
condensation the mean velocity of molecules in the
vapour adjacent to a liquid surface is not zero, as
can be assumed for equilibrium conditions. During
evaporation vapour molecules will have a mean vel-
ocity away from the interface and to account for this
a correction factor must be added to the evaporation
rate equation. A theoretical analysis of the molecular
distribution problem, given by Schrage [28], resulted
2966 1. W. EAMES el al.
in the introduction o f F , The Schrage correction factor
which accounts for the net velocity of vapour
molecules, to equation (4). Also, the Knudsen evap-
oration coefficient, ~:~, has been replaced by what has
been called the "'true" evaporation coefficient, ~: [20].
(2 R) r (5)
Another term which has been used [19, 29] instead
of the Scharge correction lector, for systems in which
the state of the gas phase does not depart appreciably
from its equilibrium condition, has been derived by
Nabavian and Bromley [20]. This term, given by equa-
tion (6), replaces the Knudsen evaporation coefficient
in equation (4) :
2¢:
(0)
It is important that the assumed molecular dis-
tribution function, which characterises the state of the
vapour phase, is accurate. The approximations used
by Schrage [28] to derive a molecular distribution
function have led to a formula describing an evap-
oration rate that does not satisfy energy or m o m e n t u m
conservation [5]. This shortcoming in Schrage's the-
ory has been overcome by Barrett and Clement [5]
who have derived their own formula for evaporation
rates from an analysis in which energy and m o m e n t u m
are conserved. The results of Barrett and Clement
compare well with other results from more complex
theories of molecular distribution given in their paper.
3. PREVIOUS RESULTS A N D S U M M A R I E S OF
THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES USED
Table l(a) lists, in chronological order, previously
published values of evaporation coefficient for water
and the experimental techniques used to calculate
these values. Table l(b) records a selection of evap-
oration coefficients which have been determined for
glycerol. The results for glycerol are given because
they are an example of low evaporation coefficients
that have been determined for a liquid other than
water. Glycerol and water are polar and so should.
according to some theories [11, 13, 14], have
"inherently" low evaporation coefficients.
So far, experimental methods used to measure the
ew~poration coefficient of water have generally fallen
into one of four categories and these are :
(a) Unsteady state evaporation into an evacuated
chamber [23, 31, 36].
(b) Evaporation from a quiescent or quasi-quiesc-
ent liquid surface [12]. Mainly the early exper-
iments of Wyllie [14], Alty [15, 16] and Alty
and M a c K a y [17].
(c) Jet stream Tensimeter [9, 18, 21, 30, 35, 38].
(d) Determining interracial heat transfer
coefficients and calculating the evaporation
coefficient from these values [18, 19, 20, 31].
3.1. Unsteady slate e~;aporation into an et:acuated
C]ICIIII])Cr
Unsteady state evaporation experiments have been
conducted by Delaney at a/. [23], Bonacci et al. [29]
and Heideger and Boudart [36]. In these experiments
a known volume is evacuated and, subsequently,
sealed off and the evaporation of pure substance pro-
ceeds until equilibrium is reached. Delaney el a/. [23]
and Bonacci el (//. [29] calculated the evaporation
coefficient by substituting experimental values into the
corrected Hertz Knudsen equation, given below:
dP, 2~¢ A ( R T ~ I :
dl - 2 - ~ : V \ 2 ~ M ] (P~ P') (7)
It should he noted that the Scharge correction lector,
~:, = (2e:/2 ~:/, has not been accounted for by Daleney
el al. [23] or Heideger and Boudart [36]: however,
the value of the (Knudsen) evaporation coefficient, in
both these cases, is so small that ~"-~ ~:~.
A different method, involving an evaporation-
effusion technique, has been used by Heideger and
Boudart [36]. This method compared the rate of free
ewlporation of glycerol with the rate of effusion
through a small orifice. From a comparison of the
evaporation and effusion rates, and by integrating
equation (7), the evaporation coefficient was deter-
mined without a knowledge of the wtpour pressure or
temperature :
,: = / " - l) tsl
~It. \ll
where A0 area of orifice, A~ surface area of the evap-
orating liquid, to time for equilibrium to occur in
effusion, q time for equilibrium to occur in evap-
oration.
From their experimental results, Heideger and Bou-
dart found that as pressure increased the evaporation
coefficient decreased asymptotically to 0.05. This low
value of ~: was accepted as a true property of glycerol
and the higher values, calculated at lower pressures,
were considered erroneous and were believed to occur
due to adsorption effects, although there is no con-
clusive evidence of this presented in their paper, it was
assumed that adsorption would not be instantaneous
and that it would increase to more than t~, thus increas-
ing ¢:. It was then assumed that as the equilibrium
vapour pressure was reached, adsorption equilibrium
was also obtained and the true of ~: was acquired.
Experiments were also performed, by Heideger and
Boudart, with an agitator placed in the glycerol res-
ervoir which, it was presumed, prevented a stagnant
liquid surface forming. The results from these exper-
iments were the same as the results from the exper-
iments without agitation and, thus, it was reasoned
that ffimpurities were present in the glycerol they were
 The evaporation coefficient of water 2967

Table 1(a). Values, from previous experiments, of evaporation coefficients for water

Empirical
Author [Ref.] evap/cond
and date Experimental technique coefficients

T. Alty [15] (1931) Evaporation at low pressure from a test tube. Graphs of e, = 0.01
evaporation rate vs pressure are extrapolated to find evaporation
rate in a vacuum. T = 18, 40 and 60:C
T. Airy [16] (1933) Evaporation at low pressure from slow forming water e = 0.04
droplets. Surface temperatures were calculated from surface
tension values. T = 20 25:C
T. Alty and C. A. MacKay Same method as Alty [2]. e, = 0.036
[17] (1935)
K. C. D. Hickman [21] Falling stream tensimeter. A high velocity water jet is exposed r. ~> 0.25
(1954) to a vacuum for a short period of time. Condensate is
collected in a cold trap. T = 2 7°C
K. Nabavian and L.A. Rapid condensation of pure steam, at low pressure, at 10 and e = 1~).35
Bromley [20] (1963) 5 0 C in a system designed to minimise thermal resistances in
series with the interracial vapour liquid thermal resistance.
D. T. Jamieson [16] (1964) Condensation of tritium labelled steam onto a stream of r, >~ 0.3
falling water.
L. J. Delaney et al. [ 2 3 ] Unsteady state evaporation into a closed system, i.e. an e = 0.042~0.027
(1964) evacuated chamber, at 0"C and 43cC.
K. C. D. Hickman [9] Jet stream tensimeter. T = 0-20"C c/> 0.48
(1965)
A. F. Mills and R . A . Condensation of steam on a vertical plate at low pressure, e, >~ 0.45
Seban [19] (1967) T = 45 50'F. e, is calculated from measurements of the
heat transfer coefficient.
J. R. Maa [18] (1967) Jet streamer tensimeter. T = 0-10 :C e= 1
A. Tamir and D. Hasson Exposing a fan spray sheet of water within a saturated steam e = 0.2
[31] (1971) atmosphere and measuring interferometrically the film
thickness. From the measurements interfacial heat transfer
coefficients and e are calculated.
U. Narusawa and G. S. Evaporation of water, at low pressure, from a stagnant pool e = 0.038 surface
Springer [12] (1975) and from a constantly replenished flowing surface. T = 18 2 7 C stagnant
and was measured using an infra red radiation technique. e = 0.17 surface
replenished
J. C. Bonacci et aL [29] Unsteady state evaporation into an evacuated chamber ~=0.7 1
(1976) T = 4-9'C
S. Fujikawa et al. [32] Condensation of water on the end wall of a shock tube. Film ~: = 0.04
(1983) thickness and temperature are measured by optical techniques.
T ~ 20)C
I. E. Smith [33] (1985) Evaporation at low pressure from a film of water falling e = 0.03
down the surface of a heated cylinder and the collection of
vapour in a cryopump. T = 0-20'C
V. V. Beloded et al. [34] Measurements of the growth of water droplets in an Argon 0.34
(1989) atmosphere. T = 250-260'K

Table 1(b). Values, from previous experiments, of evaporation coefficients for glycerol

G. Wyllie [14] (1949) Measurement of evaporation and effusion rates from a test ~: = 0.052
tube, at low pressure, at 18:C. Vapour is drawn offand
collected in a cryopump.
D. J. Trevoy [35] (1953) Jet stream tensimeter. T = 30~70 C e, = 1
W. J. Heideger and M. Unsteady state evaporation and effusion into an evacuated ~: = 0.05
Boudart [36] (1962) chamber. T ~ 1 8 C
H. K. Cammenga et al. [37] Calculating free evaporation and effusion rates by measuring r, = l
(1977) the weight loss from test cells. T ~ 18C

n o t a c c u m u l a t i n g at the liquid surface a n d inhibiting e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient o f a b o u t 0.05, were in e r r o r

e v a p o r a t i o n . B u r r o w s [8] e x a m i n e d the results o f
H e i d g e r a n d B o u d a r t [36] a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t inac-
c u r a t e p r e s s u r e m e a s u r e m e n t s , w h i c h affect the values
o f to a n d tL, h a d led to the c a l c u l a t i o n o f e r r o n e o u s
values o f ~ (c.f. Section 4.1.). C a m m e n g a e t al. [37]
also c o n c l u d e d t h a t p r e v i o u s results for glycerol, f r o m
Wyllie [14] a n d H e i d e g e r a n d B o u d a r t [36], giving an
because of inaccurate v a p o u r pressure measurements
d u e to m i n u t e traces o f w a t e r in the glycerol.
A n i m p o r t a n t result f r o m the e x p e r i m e n t s o f Bon-
acci e t al. [29] w a s t h a t the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient w a s
time d e p e n d e n t . T h i s s a m e c o n c l u s i o n w a s r e a c h e d by
a n u m b e r o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s [18, 30, 39]. W h e n , in
the e x p e r i m e n t s o f Bonacci e t al. [29], the e x p o s u r e
2968 1. W. EAMES et al.
time for the liquid surface was greater than a few
seconds the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient was in good agree-
m e n t with the results of Heideger a n d B o u d a r t [36]
a n d Delaney et al. [23]. If, however, the time elapsed
was less t h a n one second then the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient was time d e p e n d e n t a n d h a d a m a x i m u m
value for water of 0.55. Allowing for corrections due
to errors in surface t e m p e r a t u r e readings, Bonacci et
al. [29] re-calculated the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient and
stated t h a t it could increase to between 0.7 and 1. The
main reasons given for the low values of~:, i.e. less than
0.1, were surface t e m p e r a t u r e errors due to insufficient
accuracy of the measuring device (a thermistor), large
t e m p e r a t u r e gradients, and surface tension induced
lateral gradients. The same reasons could also explain
the low values of c calculated by Delaney et al. [23],
but they c a n n o t explain the low e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficients calculated by Heideger a n d Boudart [36].
This is because glycerol has a far lower v a p o u r pres-
sure t h a n water (P~(gtycerol) >- 10 " P~ (water) at
2 0 C ) , resulting in a lower e v a p o r a t i o n rate and a
lower heat requirement, needed to replace the heat
lost d u r i n g evaporation, for the exposed liquid
surface. Thus, large t e m p e r a t u r e gradients, and the
associated p r o b l e m of t e m p e r a t u r e measurement, near
the liquid surface were unlikely to have occurred.
3.2. Evaporation ./i'om a quiescenl or quasi-quie.s'cenl
liquid s'utJ~lce
F r o m early experiments, by Airy [15, 16] a n d Alty
and M a c K a y [17], low values for the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient of water were calculated (c.f. Table I(a)).
These results were perceived as indicating that a large
fraction of water molecules were unable to e v a p o r a t e
due to a surface resistance. Thus. it was reasonable to
think that every substance would have a characteristic
e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient for. or energy barrier to, con-
densation and e v a p o r a t i o n and that this value was. in
some way, d e p e n d e n t on its molecular structure. A
subsequent theory was that polar molecules, like water
a n d glycerol, have low e v a p o r a t i o n coefficients, while
symmetrical molecules have coefficients near unity.
This idea was supported by the experimental results
of Wyllie [14], w h o determined the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient of glycerol, using an effusion/diffusion tech-
nique, to be 0.05. At the time of its publication this
result was significant because the low values of c,
already published for water, were unreliable due to
likely inaccuracies in surface t e m p e r a t u r e measure-
m e n t s (c.f. Section 3.1). Wyllie's value of ~: seemed to
confirm previous results [15 17] and, also as large
surface cooling effects do not occur during tile evap-
oration of glycerol (c.f. Section 3.1 ), these results were
given more credibility especially in chemistry. The
publication of Wyllie's results influenced a n u m b e r of
theories involving the values of e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficients for polar molecules [10, 11, 13]. (The
effects of polarity and molecular o r i e n t a t i o n on evap-
oration coefficients are discussed in Section 4.2.)
W h e n measuring e v a p o r a t i o n rates the effect of flow
impedance, caused by intermolecular collisions and
molecular collisions with the walls of the apparatus,
must not be ignored. In Burrow's [7] paper on v a p o u r
c o n d u c t a n c e at low pressure it was claimed that Wyl-
lie's value of 0.052, for the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient of
glycerol, would be at least 0.5 if the effects of molec-
ular collisions were taken into account. An analysis
of v a p o u r c o n d u c t a n c e and its effect on the various
empirical calculations o f c is given m Section 4.1.
The results from the experiments of Alty and
M a c k a y [15 17] were discussed in a n u m b e r of later
publications [3, 4, 20, 22], all of which dismissed these
earlier calculations as highly erroneous due to surface
cooling a n d related difficulties m sur[ace temperature
measurement. These problems are accentuated for
water due to its relatively high v a p o u r pressure, lead-
ing to a high e v a p o r a t i o n rate, and low thermal con-
ductivity. (Free convection also occurs in quasi-
quiescent liquids but its c o n t r i b u t i o n to the overall
heat transfer rate will be small, if not negligible.) These
two factors c o m b i n e to cause a shortage of heat avail-
ability at the surface and so adversely affect ewlp-
oration rates. Therefore. high e v a p o r a t i o n rates, t\~r
water, will lead to surface cooling and large teln-
perature gradients perpendicular to the interface, thus
m a k i n g it difficult, if not impossible, to measure the
surface t e m p e r a t u r e accurately using contact tech-
niques, for example, thermocouples. T h e r m o c o u p l e
m e a s u r e m e n t s will not only be inaccurate but it is
possible, as mentioned by Littlewood and Rideal [22],
that the j u n c t i o n itself acts as a heat source leading
to further errors. An example, by M o z u r k e w i c h [4],
d e m o n s t r a t e d the degree of cooling possible if water
is e v a p o r a t i n g with an e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient of unity
into a vacuum. If the heat required to replace the
latent heat of wtporisation is provided only by thermal
c o n d u c t i o n then a t e m p e r a t u r e drop in the region of
104 K cm ' will be produced. Tiffs t e m p e r a t u r e gradi-
ent is likely to occur in a surface thickness o1" the
order of(/. 1 into [18]. A further example, from M a a ' s
theoretical results, involves the calculation of an
" ' a p p a r e n t " ewtporation coefficient, where the - a p p a r -
e n t " e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient is calculated using a bulk
liquid t e m p e r a t u r e reading and not the t e m p e r a t u r e
of the ewtporating liquid surface. Inlet water tem-
perature is taken to be 5 C and the e n v i r o n m e n t a l
v a p o u r pressure is assigned a value of half the satu-
ration pressure at this temperature. The true ewtp-
oration coefficient was assumed to be unity and after
0.001 of a second the a p p a r e n t ewtporation coefficient
was 0.3. Heat transfer limitations are discussed in
more detail in Section 4.3.
An additional difficulty, with these early exper-
iments, was that the surface of the water was station-
ary and this can lead to an accumulation of impurities
[40] at the interface which could significantly reduce
e v a p o r a t i o n rates. This could be the reason for tile
c o n t r a d i c t o r y results from the experiments of Naru-
sawa and Springer [12], where the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient of water was calculated to be more than
 The evaporation coefficient of water
1.0
0.8
.- 0.5
"~E 0.4 a O.OOlO
+~ 0.3
0.2
z 0.1
0 0.0000
IE-08 O.O0000l 0.000l 0.01 1 100
Time [s]
Fig. 1. The effect of evaporation coefficient on the normalised
surlhce temperature, T,--T~/T 1 - T,.: (a)~, = 1; (b)e, = 0.9;
(c) e, = 0.5.
four times greater for a constantly replenished surface
than for a quiescent surface. Thus, unless absolute
purity can be ensured, a stationary liquid surface,
where impurities are allowed to accumulate, will pro-
duce a large interfacial resistance to heat transfer [40]
and c will be reduced.
3.3. Falling stream jet tensimeter (and related exper-
iments)
In H i c k m a n a n d Trevoy's experiments [38], aimed
at calculating e v a p o r a t i o n rates a n d coefficients, a
falling cylindrical stream of liquid evaporates into an
evacuated c h a m b e r . This m e t h o d has been called the
falling stream jet tensimeter technique a n d has been
used in m a n y subsequent experiments, all of which
yielded high e v a p o r a t i o n coefficients for a n u m b e r o f
fluids [9, 18, 21, 35]. Initially the main objective of
this technique was to prevent impurities congregating
at the surface o f the liquid, as sometimes h a p p e n s in
liquid stills [12, 40], by producing a t u r b u l e n t liquid
flow with a surface that was being continuously
renewed. A t u r b u l e n t liquid film also increases con-
vective heat transfer and, thus, reduced surface
cooling. The v a p o u r p r o d u c e d by the water stream
was usually d r a w n off a n d collected in a cold trap
where the mass of c o n d e n s a t e could be measured [9,
18,21].
A n additional reason for using jet tensimetry was
to minimise surface cooling by exposing the jet o f
water for a short period of time (about 10 3 s). Thus,
the a m o u n t o f water evaporated, a n d the cor-
responding surface t e m p e r a t u r e drop, was small. In
H i c k m a n ' s [21] experiments surface cooling was neg-
lected a n d so the c value, calculated as 0.25, can be
taken as a lower b o u n d . F r o m experimental results
using a jet tensimeter a n d from an analysis of surface
cooling d u r i n g e v a p o r a t i o n , M a a [18] concluded that
the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient for water was near unity.
However, a closer e x a m i n a t i o n of M a a ' s results
reveals t h a t there was good agreement between theor-
etical and experimental +'apparent" e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficients when the true e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient, a
c o n s t a n t used in the theoretical equations, was unity.
F r o m o u r own calculations, for flash e v a p o r a t i o n
from a film of water, Fig. 1 shows that the normalised
surface t e m p e r a t u r e is higher w h e n e = 0.5 t h a n when
2969
100.0000 / b
~" 10.0000
1.0000
0.1 o o o
0.0100
O.O00l
,~ 0.0000 t = 3 s
~ ~ ~
1E-08 o.000001 0,0001 0.01 1 100
Exposure time [s]
Fig. 2. The effect of evaporation coefficient on the evap-
oration rate for a falling water film: (a) e = 1 ; (b) c~- 0.5;
(c) e = 0.1 (d) +: = 0.01.
+"= 1; however, the profile when e = 0.9 is the same as
t h a t for e = 1. Figure 2 shows the effect of e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient, with time, on the e v a p o r a t i o n rate for a
falling water film. The lines on the g r a p h suggest that,
for water, it is possible to prove that the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient is not low; however, it is considerably more
difficult to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t e is unity. Figure 3 shows
a further example of the effect of e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient on the rate of e v a p o r a t i o n from a film of
water falling d o w n a vertical heated plate. This g r a p h
shows that to have a significant effect on the evap-
o r a t i o n rate the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient would have to
be more t h a n one order of m a g n i t u d e less t h a n unity.
Alternatively, if results from a falling film e v a p o r a t i o n
experiment were used to determine the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient then Fig. 3 suggests that it would be difficult
to accurately predict a coefficient o f greater t h a n 0.1.
The e v a p o r a t i o n rate ( % ) = W~r/W. . . . where We,. is
the total, or cumulative, a m o u n t of water evaporated
over a specified film length per second a n d Wm~xis the
m a x i m u m a m o u n t of water t h a t could be e v a p o r a t e d
which is determined from the superheat of the water
at the inlet. F o r Figs. 1 and 2 the following assumptions
have been m a d e : P~ = 0 . 7 5 P , T~ = 10C+ F = 0.11 kg
m s - t a n d 6 (film thickness) = 0.4 mm. W h e r e nor-
malised distance = z/i~ (where z is the vertical dis-
tance) a n d normalised cumulative e v a p o r a t i o n
rate = Wcr/ti~. ( F o r the results given in Fig. 3 the inlet
water is assumed to be at s a t u r a t i o n point.)
M a a [15] measured e v a p o r a t i o n rates for water jets
with a n exposure time of a b o u t 0.001 s, the predictions
in this analysis indicate that for this exposure time the
O.Ol //
.~ 0.008 b
0.006 a
'~ 0.004
O
ooo2 I
0 500 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3000
Normalized distance
Fig. 3. The effect of evaporation coefficient on the normalised
cumulative evaporation rate for a falling water film on a
vertical plate with a 5 kW m -"heat flux applied at the solid
surface: (a) e = 1 : (b) +: = 0.1 ; (c) e = 0.01.
2970
cumulative evaporation rates when a - 1 and when
~: = 0.5 differ by only 17% (when f: = 0.9 the difference
is less than 1%). Therefore, although Maa's results
confirm that ~: > 0.5 they do not conclusively predict
an accurate value of~; for water [14]. If the evaporation
coefficient is to be accurately measured then the inter-
facial resistance must be significant and, therefore,
liquid exposure time very small, if possible less than
l x l 0 5s.
3.4. Calculalion q/et'aporation and condensation e o e f
ficienls.//om inte,j}wial heal tran,s/k,r eo~[iicients
The advantage of this method is that it is less depen-
dent on the accuracy of the surface temperature
measurement (c.f. equation 9). It is, also a convenient
method for determining the effect that evaporation
coefficients have on the overall thermal resistance to
heat transfer in evaporators. The interfacial heat
transfer coefficient can be calculated from a knowl-
edge of the overall thermal resistance and the other
resistances in a heat exchanger. The interracial ther-
mal resistance varies little during an evaporation pro-
cess; however, the resistance of the bulk liquid
increases with time, as the thermal boundary layer
grows, to become the dominant resistance. Therefore,
this experimental technique has the same problem,
unless the exposure time of the evaporating liquid is
small, as other techniques in that if the evaporation
coefficient is high 0" > 0.5) then the interfacial heat
transfer coefficient is small and it is probable that large
errors will be incurred during its calculation [19, 20].
Using the following expression l\~r interlacial heat
transfer coefficient :
hi = W,4.!(7\- T,)
and from the H e r t z - K n u d s e n evaporation rate equa-
tion and the integrated Clapeyron equation, Nabavian
and Bromley [20] derived the following expression :
~: hl(2rcRT,,~,:M) 1 -"( T, I/, ,,',:t-').
Maa [18], using a slightly different technique,
applied a "'semi-analytical" method to calculate an
" a p p a r e n t " evaporation coefficient from interracial
heat transfer coefficients. This method assumed a
number of" initial values, including an evaporation
coefficient of unity. From these initial values the sur-
face temperature, "'apparent" evaporation coefficient
and other properties were calculated at various time
intervals. Results show the apparent evaporation
coefficient to be time dependent over an initial period
of about 10 ~ s and constant thereafter (c.f. Section
4.3). The results from this method agree with the
results from a numerical technique, derived by Maa
[18] and presented in the same paper, although com-
putation time for the semi-analytical method is much
shorter than that for the numerical method.
Tamir and Hasson [31] used a different method to
calculate h~f. In their experiments interferrograms were
used to measure the thickness variations, due to phase
1. W. EAMES et al.
change, in the liquid film. F r o m these measurements
local interracial heat transfer coefficients and evap-
oration coefficients were calculated.
3.4.1. Other publications. Other papers on the evap-
oration coefficient include a number of reviews [1, 3,
4, 24, 27, 41, 42] of published work on evaporation
and condensation coefficients. There are two pub-
lications, Fujikawa et al. [32] and Beloded el al. [34], in
which entirely different techniques, from those already
mentioned, have been used. Beloded el al. measured
the growth of water droplets condensing in an argon
atmosphere and Fujikawa el al. used optical tech-
niques to measure the temperature and tilm thickness
of water condensing on the wall of a shock tube.
The relevance and accuracy of the results from these
investigations, in the field of evaporation and con-
densation coefficients, is difficult to assess from the
limited amount of information and data provided in
the papers,
4. D I S C U S S I O N
It appears, from the review of published data, that
most substances have now established an evaporation
coefficient of unity [3, 42]. With the evidence for water
pointing increasingly towards a coefficient of greater
than 0.5 it is reasonable to believe that a coefficient of
unity is an actual value for all substances. This is
against the belietg of previously published works [14.
16, 17] where it was proposed that molecular structure
was a primary factor and that an evaporation
coefficient was an inherent value, sometimes below
unity, belonging to a substance. Molecular structure
is one of three explanations, along with molecular
diff'usion and heat transfer limitations, that have fre-
quently been used to account t\~r low evaporation
coefficients. Each of these three topics and their
relationships with evaporation coefficients are now
considered.
(9)
4.1. Molecuhlr df[lZlsion theory
The difference between the maximum and the net
evaporation rate is accounted for, in most inves-
tigations, by measuring the vapour pressure sur-
rounding the liquid and using the Hertz Knudsen
evaporation rate equation (equation (4) in Section 2).
However, Burrows, whose theories are established in
a number of publications [7, 8, 43~45], considered this
problem on a smaller scale and introduced a cor-
rection factor, to the evaporation rate equation (equa-
tion (3) in Section 2), which was derived l¥om molec-
ular collision theory.
The maximum rate of evaporation occurs when
w~pour molecules can reach the condenser without
colliding with molecules of gas or returning w~pour.
Vapour molecules, however, will continue to collide
unless the condenser is brough infinitely close to the
evaporation surface. In experiments where the con-
denser and evaporator are far apart an efficiency
tkictor,/~ has been introduced, by Burrows, to account
 The evaporation coefficientof water
for differences between the theoretical evaporation
rate and the experimental evaporation rate. This
efficiency factor is dependent on the shape of the evap-
orating surface, the geometry of any surrounding sur-
faces, which allow re-evaporation of molecules that
strike such surfaces, and the ability of the condenser to
condense, without re-evaporating vapour molecules.
Using a simplified molecular collision theory,
involving various assumptions, Burrows [43, 45]
derived an equation from which the efficiency factor
(f) can be calculated :
f= F+(1-F)(2e-U-e 2,~) (10)
where
Ac H continually modified. Consequently, explanations
and N = --
Ac+Ae kl
(k correlation factor determined by the geometry of
the system).
Equation (10) was found, by Burrows [43], to fit
the data of Hickman and Trevoy [38] reasonably well.
However, Kaplon et al. [46] rejected this equation
stating that it was insufficiently accurate and, sub-
sequently, derived an alternative formula.
The presence of pressure gradients in the apparatus
of an evaporation rate experiment may be the source
of discrepancies in the values of evaporation
coefficients. Two such investigations, in which dis-
crepancies are thought to have occurred, are the works
of Wyllie [14] and Hiedeger and Boudart [36]. In
Wyllie's experiments the condenser, or cold trap, was
connected to the evaporation chamber by a pipe. This
pipe connection creates a problem of vapour conduc-
tion, where the pressure at one end of the pipe is
greater than at the other end [7]. The restriction of
vapour flow is due to the cosine distribution with
which molecules that collide with then re-evaporate
from the pipe wall. Burrows [7] suggested that Wyllie's
[14] value of 0.052, for the evaporation coefficient of
glycerol, should be at least 0.5 if this effect was taken
into account.
The work of Heideger and Boudart [36] has already
been discussed in Section 3.1. Since glycerol has a low
vapour pressure its mean free path in an evacuated
chamber will be large and intermolecular collisions
will occur infrequently leading to a slow development
of randomness. Burrows [8] noted that the mean free
path of glycerol, in Heideger and Boudart's exper-
iments, was comparable with the dimensions of the
evaporation chamber and that when this occurs, and
there is mass flow, the effective pressure is a function
of direction and has no unique value. Burrows went
on to state that, "the readings of pressure, on which
Heideger and Boudart rely, bear no direct relationship
to the kinetic equations which they use, the gauge
readings serving only as an indication of the relative
rate at which molecules reach the sensitive element of
the gauge, there being no obvious correlation between
2971
such rates and the rates at which molecules leave, or
return to, the liquid surface".
Apparatus design is a significant factor which must
be accounted for when measuring the pressure and
calculating evaporation rates in experiments where
constant conditions cannot be assumed. If exper-
imental evaporation rates are to be fully understood
then the movement of vapour molecules, at low pres-
sure, is an important subject that must be appreciated.
4.2. The effects o[polarity and molecular orientation
on evaporation coefficients
In general, values of empirically derived evap-
oration coefficients for water have increased in mag-
nitude over the past 60 years and in accordance
with this the interpretations of the results have been
given for results published 30 years ago have now been
acknowledged as erroneous. An example of this are
the results of Wyllie [14] and the hypotheses put for-
ward by other investigators [10, 11, 13] who used
Wyllie's results as a guide for their theoretical cal-
culations. In these theories it was proposed that bar-
riers to evaporation and condensation, and the result-
ing (inherently) low values ore for some liquids, were
due to rotational effects of polar molecules and
relationships with the free angle ratio. Eight years
after Wyllie's paper was published Burrows [7], in a
paper which emphasised the importance of molecular
collisions on experimental evaporation rates, stated
that Wyllie's results, indicating ~. = 0.05 for glycerol,
were erroneous due to the lack of an appropriate
expression that would account for vapour con-
ductance in the experimental apparatus. Accounting
for vapour conductance would, according to Burrows,
have resulted in a revised value for e of 0.5.
The work of Burrows [7, 8] and the result of Hick-
man [9, 21], Trevoy [35] and others, have eroded the
theories [10, 11, 13] that suggested a possible con-
nection between evaporation coefficients and the
polarity and orientation of molecules. However,
although the suggested links between molecular struc-
ture and evaporation coefficient are not as strong as
once thought a correlation should not be dismissed
entirely. It is possible, as mentioned by Trevoy [35],
that, for quiescent surfaces, polarity and surface con-
tamination combine to produce a significant inter-
facial resistance to evaporation.
4.3. Heat tran.~/er limitations
During evaporation heat is lost from a liquid sur-
face and to prevent a temperature drop, at the surface,
heat must be supplied to the interface at an equal rate.
When heat supplied, to the evaporating surface, is less
than heat lost the temperature, and hence the rate of
evaporation, decreases until an equilibrium condition
is reached. Thus, interphase molecular transfer is
linked to heat transfer which can be the controlling
factor for evaporation rates [1,4, 9, 18]. Heat transfer
rates do not change significantly with temperature but
2972 1. W. EAMES et al.
e v a p o r a t i o n rates increase exponentially as tem-
perature and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g saturated v a p o u r
pressure increase. Therefore, the resistance to the sup-
ply of heat to the liquid v a p o u r interface increases
with temperature.
The low thermal conductivity a n d high saturated
v a p o u r pressure of water leads to high e v a p o r a t i o n
rates and relatively low heat transfer rates in the
liquid. Consequently, high t e m p e r a t u r e gradients
form in the liquid, during e v a p o r a t i o n , which lead to
bulk liquid t e m p e r a t u r e readings often being mistaken
for the t e m p e r a t u r e of the e v a p o r a t i o n liquid surti~ce.
These e r r o n e o u s t e m p e r a t u r e readings result in the
calculation of incorrect theoretical e v a p o r a t i o n rates
and " a p p a r e n t " e v a p o r a t i o n coefficients.
E v a p o r a t i o n coefficients were found to be time and
t e m p e r a t u r e d e p e n d e n t in a n u m b e r of experiments
[9, 18, 23, 29, 31, 39, 47]. It is t h o u g h t that these
dependencies are a consequence of the errors in tem-
perature m e a s u r e m e n t caused by high t e m p e r a t u r e
gradients in the liquid adjacent to the v a p o u r liquid
interlace. As the liquid t e m p e r a t u r e increases so does
the e v a p o r a t i o n rate and, also, the t e m p e r a t u r e gradi-
ent at the liquid surface. This leads to larger tem-
perature m e a s u r e m e n t errors and a lower a p p a r e n t
e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient. The reason for the time
dependency is very similar, as e v a p o r a t i o n proceeds
the surface t e m p e r a t u r e gradient increases and, hence,
the a p p a r e n t e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient decreases. Two
possible solutions to this problem are: (at) calculate
the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient without measuring the
t e m p e r a t u r e of the e v a p o r a t i o n surface [19, 20, 31];
a n d (b) use a n o n - c o n t a c t technique that will accu-
rately measure the t e m p e r a t u r e of the upper layers of
molecules on the water surface [20, 48].
5, CONCLUSIONS
Empirically derived values for the ewtporation
coefficient of water have ranged from 0.01 to unity
a n d it is, therefore, u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that this coefficient
has been the subject of much speculation over the
last 60 years. M a n y of the experimental resuhs, from
which e v a p o r a t i o n coefficients were calculated, are
t h o u g h t to have been misleading due to e r r o n e o u s
t e m p e r a t u r e and pressure measurements. Some inves-
tigators have neglected i m p o r t a n t lectors, for exam-
pie, v a p o u r conductance, or have used i n a p p r o p r i a t e
assumptions. Thus, it is i m p o r t a n t to distinguish
between e r r o n e o u s results and those which are com-
paratively accurate before drawing any conclusions
a b o u t the e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient of water.
Investigations which obtained low e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficients for water are t h o u g h t to be in error and
this could usually by attributed to two factors: (1)
molecular diffusion ; and (2) heat transfer limitations.
A link between molecular structure and e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient is possible a l t h o u g h any correlation will
not be as significant as was once t h o u g h t [10, 11, 13].
The results which have accurately accounted for heat
transfer a n d v a p o u r conductance, and are accepted as
the most reliable, give values of v greater t h a n 0.5 [4,
28]. To prove t h a t c = 1 for water is difficult because
it requires the interracial resistance to be significant
and for this to h a p p e n either the liquid exposure time
must be small, if possible less than 1 × 10 5 of a
second, or the rate of heat transfer to the interface
must be orders of m a g n i t u d e greater t h a n the rate at
which heat is conducted from the bulk liquid.
It is i m p o r t a n t that resistance to e v a p o r a t i o n in the
liquid and v a p o u r phases and at the interface arc
accounted for if a true value of c is to be calculated.
It is concluded that reliable investigations have shown
that the true e v a p o r a t i o n coefficient of water is greater
than a hall" and that a coefficient for water of unity,
which is in accordance with other substances, is con-
ceivable a l t h o u g h no conclusive results are awlilable.
In most e v a p o r a t i o n processes the e v a p o r a t i o n
coefficient must be at least one order of m a g n i t u d e
less t h a n unity flit is to have a significant effect on the
e v a p o r a t i o n rate, as shown by Figs. 2 and 3. F u t u r e
work on e v a p o r a t i o n processes can, therefore, focus
on reducing the limitations to rates of e v a p o r a t i o n
caused by heat transfer resistances in the bulk liquid
phase and c o n t a m i n a n t s b o t h in the v a p o u r and liquid
phases.
REFERENCES
1. Barrett. J. (7. and Clement. C. F.. Growth rates for liquid
drops. Journal of Aerosol Science, 1988, 19, 223 242.
2. Prupacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D., Micropluv;ies O~
Cloud'; and P;'ecipitolion. D. Reidel. Dordrecht. Holland.
1978, pp. 133 135.
3. Paul. B., Compilation of evaporation coefficients..,1RS
Jour~al, 1962, 32, 1321 1328.
4. Mozurkewich, M.. Aerosol growth and the condensation
coefficient for water: a review. Aerosol Science 7i'ch-
noh,'qy, 1986, 5. 223 236.
5. Barrett, J. and Clement, C., Kinetic evaporation and
condensation rates and their coefficients. Journal Of Col-
IoM lnlerlace Science, 1992, 150(2), 352 364.
6. Knudsen, M., The Kinelic Theory o/Gase,s. Methuen.
London, 195//.
7. Burrows. G.. Evaporation at low pressure. Jol#'t/a[ e!/
Applied ('hemist W, 1957.7, 375 384.
8. Burrows, G.. Evaporation in an evacuated chamber.
I'acuum, 1965 15(8). 389 399.
9. Hickman. K. C. D., Evaporation coefficients of liquids.
IM h~ternational ,~vmposium on Water DesalhTation
(SWD, 27). I 28 Washington D.C,. 1965.
10. ttirth, P. J. and Pound, G. M., Coefficients o1" evap-
oration and condensation. Jollrlla[ O/PIt I'sit s a/ld ( ' h e m -
i.~try, 1960, 64, 619 626.
11. Mortensen, E. M. and Eyring, H.. Transmission
coefficients for evaporation and condensation. ,lour//a]
qfPhy.~'ics and ChenK~'lry, 1960, 64, 846 849.
12. Narusawa, U. and Springer, G. S., Measurement of
evaporation rates o1"water. Journal qf Co/IoM lnteUacia/
Sciem'e. 1975, 51/(21,392 395.
13. Penner, S. S., On the kinetics of evaporation..lournal q/
Physics and Che;ni.;'try, 1952, 52, 476 479.
14. Wyllie. G., Evaporation and surface structure of liquids.
Proeeedinfts O/'Nle Royal Sociely qf Lot.uton. 1949. A197,
383 395.
15. Alt?, T., The reflection of vapour molecules at a liquid
surface, l'roceedinqs O/ the Royal Society Of London,
1931. AI3I, 554 564.
 The evaporation coefficient of water
16. Alty, T., The m a x i m u m rate of evaporation of water.
Philosophieal Magazine, 1933, 15, 82-103.
17. Alty, T. and MacKay, C. A., The accommodation
coefficient and the evaporation coefficient of water. Pro-
eeeding ~[the Royal Society of London, 1935, A149~ 104-
116.
18. Maa, J. R., Evaporation coefficient of liquids. Industrial
Engineering C77emieal Fundamentals, 1967, 6(4), 504-
518.
19. Mills, A. F. and Seban, R. A., The condensation
coefficient of water. International Journal ~f Heat and
Mass Tran.~/~r, 1967, 10, 1815 1827.
20. Nabavian, K. and Bromley, L. A., Condensation
coefficient of water. Chemical Engineering Science, 1963,
18, 651 660.
21. Hickman, K. C. D.. M a x i m u m evaporation coefficient
of water. Industrial Engineering Chemisto,, 1954, 46(7),
1442-1446.
22. Littlewood, R. and Rideal, Sir Eric, On the evaporation
coefficient. Transactions ~4/"the Faraday SocieO,, 1956,
52, 1598 1608.
23. Delaney, L. J., Houston. R. W. and Eagleton, L. C.,
The rate of vaporization of water and ice. Chemical
Engineering Seienee, 1964, 19, 105 114.
24. Hickman, K., Reviewing the evaporation coefficient.
Desalination, 1966, 1, 1 29.
25. Hertz, H., Annals oJPhysies, 1882, 17, 177.
26. Delchar, T. A., Vacuum Physics and Techniques, Chapter
l. C h a p m a n and Hall, London, 1993.
27. Knacke, A. and Stranski, 1. N., The mechanism of evap-
oration. Progress c?fMetal Physies, 1956, 6, 181-235.
28. Schrage, R. W., A Theoretieal Stud), o/lnterphase Mass
Transit, r, Chapters 2 and 3. Columbia University Press,
New York, 1953.
29. Bonacci, J. C., Myers, A. L., Nongbri, G. and Eagleton,
L. C., The evaporation and condensation coefficient of
water, ice and carbon tetrachloride. Chemical Engin-
eering Science, 1976, 31,609 617.
30. Jamieson, T. T., Condensation coefficient of water.
Nature, London, 1964. 202, 583.
31. Tamir, A. and Hasson, D., Evaporation and con-
densation coefficient of water. The Chemical Engineering
Journal, 1971, 2, 200 211.
32. Fujikawa, S., Akamatsu, T., Yahara, J. and Fujiko, H.,
Studies of liquid vapour phase change by a shock tube.
Applied Science Research, 1983, 38, 363 372.
33. Smith, 1. E., Design and development of absorption heat
View publication stats
2973
pumps, Cranfield Institute of Technology, 1985 (in prep-
aration).
34. Beloded, V. V., Kirichewskij, G. A. and Nuzhnyj, V. M.,
Condensation coefficient of metastable water. Journal ~/"
Aerosol Science, 1989, 20(8), 1047 1050.
35. Trevoy, D. J., Rate of evaporation of glycerol in high
vacuum. Industrial Engineering and Chemisto,, 1953,
45(4), 2366-2369.
36. Heideger, W. J. and Boudart, M., lnterfacial resistance
to evaporation. Chemical Engineering Science, 1962, 17,
1 I0.
37. Cammenga, H. K., Schulze, F. W. and Theuerl, W.,
Vapour pressure and evaporation coefficient of water.
Journal of Chemical Engineering Data, 1977, 22(2). 131
134.
38. Hickman, K. C. D. and Trevoy, D. J.. Studies in high
vacuum evaporation the falling stream tensimeter.
Industrial Engineering and Chemistry, 1952, 44(8), 1882
1888.
39. Johnstone, R. K. M. and Smith, W., Rate of con-
densation or evaporation during short exposures of a
quiescent liquid. Proceedings c~["the 3rd International
Heat Trans/k~r ConJerenee, Vol. II, Chicago, IL, A u g 7
16, 1966, pp. 348 353.
40. Hickman, K. C. D. and Torpey, W. A., Evaporation of
resting water. Industrial Engineering and Chemisto'.
1954, 46(7), 1446 1450.
41. Conrtney, W. G., Recent advances in condensation and
evaporation. ARS Journal, 1961, 31,751 -756.
42. Pound, G. M., Selected values of evaporation and con-
densation coefficients. Journal ~f Physics and Chemist O'
Rejerenee Data, 1972, 1(1), 135 146.
43. Burrows, G., Some aspects of molecular distillation.
Transactions c?/'theInstitute of Chemieal Engineers, 1954,
32, 23-34.
44. Burrows, G., Some consequences of the behaviour of
mobile molecules. Vacuum, 1958, 8, 2 18.
45. Burrows, G., Molecular Distillation. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1960.
46. Kaplon, J., Kawala, Z. and Skoczylas, A., Evaporation
rate of a liquid from the surface of a rotating disc in high
vacuum. Chemical Engineering Science, 1986, 41 (3), 519
522.
47. Mendelson, H. and Yerazunis, S., Mass transfer at high
mass fluxes : part 1. Evaporation at the stagnation point
of a cylinder. A.1.Ch.E. Journal, 1965, 11(5), 83~840.
48. Sherwood, T. K. and Johanes, C., The m a x i m u m rate of
sublimation of solids. A .LCh.E. Journal, 1962, 8(5), 590
593.